The only Axis-entity that'd NOT surrendered, finally!

[Blaudrachen]

Why does the saga of the "Indian National Army", which was first raised as the "Legion Freies Indien" in the Third Reich, not merit a separate sub-forum in this forum of "Minor Axis Nations"; it is a fact that the so-called "Arzi Huqūmat-e-Āzād-Hind (Provisional Government of Free India) had NEVER, officially, surrendered, even after the atomic-bombing in Japan, their main support-giver? The Head of this Government had a very compelling personal life-narrative that spanned three continents and an epic journey through the badlands of Central Asia, Russia and Eastern Europe, after escaping house-arrest in Calcutta, to Berlin; thereafter, he'd met Hitler and was transported aboard a German U-Boat to a Japanese submarine, off the coast of Madagascar, to end up in Malaya, where he formed the INA and managed to get the Japanese to march with him to India. His personal example'd sparked a riot of enthusiasm and fervour in British-held India, which saw to the end of the Rāj there immediately after WWII; the post-Independence Governments of India've tended to pay merely lip-service to this great man and movement: not only Churchill and Roosevelt were mono-focal! The pseudo-Left-Liberal clique/s that do seem to dominate academia and polity-centric media in many democratic countries have, in India, managed to almost sanitise the history of our Freedom Movement of significant acknowledgement/s of the INA's contribution/s to WWII. I do request folks to visit this URL-- http://www.netaji.in/articles/india-s-f ... man.html-- and respond to my demand that India-- given that parts of north-eastern India and the Andaman & Nicobar Islands had been liberated from British rule and held by a joint INA-Japanese vanguard-- be accorded the status of an Axis-nation?

[vszulc]

I'm not sure it would be in Indias best interests, to belong to the losing side of the war... National pride, monetary reperations and so on...

As to why they shouldn't have their own subforum, I guess for the same reason why "The Irish SS corps" or the "British SS corps" shouldnt have their own subforum: They're irrelevant and inconsequential to the war at large.
No matter how "fantastic!!!one!!" the guys "escape" was...

[Marcus Wendel]

The Indian volunteers fighting along side the Axis forces of Germany, Italy and Japan are discussed in the "Foreign Volunteers & Collaboration" section and so far we have simply not seen enough discussions on that topic to consider a seperate sub-section focused on that topic.

/Marcus

[Rob - wssob2]

The pseudo-Left-Liberal clique/s that do seem to dominate academia and polity-centric media in many democratic countries have, in India, managed to almost sanitise the history of our Freedom Movement of significant acknowledgement/s of the INA's contribution/s to WWII.

The "pseudo-Left-Liberal clique" ?

I suppose one could say that
- The INA was an army, not a government.
- It did not operate independently but was an adjunct to the Imperial Japanese Army
- It was defeated during the Imphal campaign in 1945.

[J. Duncan]

Was this the Movement of Chandras Bose and / or Savarkar?

[Blaudrachen]

Hello Folks, I'm SO very sorry for the delayed reply: was rather chucked around in the last two years; here're my responses to your posts:
@J. Duncan: this was the movement led by the person known as "Chandra Bose" (real name: Subhas Chandra Bose), who knew Savarkar but'd a much more organised and internationally-networked approach to Indian independence.
@Rob - wssob2: lets not roll our eyes too much at that comment; there has been a lot of history-denial after WW2: time to accept that fact, perhaps! By the way, as I'd mentioned in the post, the INA was the army of the Provisional Govt of Free India-- the documents and footage're proof enough-- ALL the Axis Powers DID recognise this Government! You're right about the army being an adjunct of the IJA, but so, in a sense, were SO many Axis armies: all dovetailed with the Big Two. It was defeated, as were all Axis armies, but it didn't sign ANY article of surrender and/or capitulation; that's my fundamental point!
@Marcus Wendel: thanks for the clarification; I'll look that section up.
@vszulc: the Irish and British SS-Corps were associations of "free", individual sympathisers of the Nazis; the INA was raised, BY THE PROVISIONAL GOVT. OF FREE INDIA, with German and, later, Japanese support, out of highly-trained professional soldiers, who'd been captured by the Germans and Japanese in the early years of WW2. The Irish and British weren't representing a Govt, provisional or otherwise, the INA WAS doing just that; I rest my case!

[LWD]

Said "provisional government" never controlled any part of India or evidenced any wide spread support that I've heard of. Thus it's recognition by the Japanese and Germans was essentially a propaganda tool or at most wishful thinking. There was no reason for any allied or for that matter neutral governments to do anything other than ignore it.

[Blaudrachen]

@LWD: When you say "I've heard of", you, clearly, are just relying on "wishful thinking" yourself; the Provisional Government controlled the Andaman & Nicobar Islands (renamed "Shaheed" and "Swaraj" by them), along with some, admittedly-small areas in North-Eastern India-- in Moirang, near the North-Eastern Indian provincial capital of Imphal, there's an INA Cemetery and administrative buildings that'd belonged to the Prov. Govt-- and, besides, they'd their administrative GHQ in Singapore, which has, always, had a sizeable Indian presence. The Allies couldn't "ignore it", given the large numbers of POWs captured after WW2, and there were public trials in New Delhi by the British, which caused massive and the most violent demonstrations, till then, all over India, along with an actual "mutiny" in the ships of the Royal Indian Navy, off the coast of Mumbai (then Bombay); further, Congress-leaders, including the future Prime Minister of India, Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru, acted as defence lawyers for the captured officers and other ranks of the INA and all sections of the political spectrum, including the Muslim League, collaborated in demonstrations against the trials! PLEASE, before being SO dismissive, read a bit about what you're dismissing out of hand; I can suggest the following books, which're just a small selection, written both by Indian and foreign historians:
1. Bose, Sisir Kumar, Alexander Werth, Narayan Gopal Jog, Subbier Appadurai Ayer, "A Beacon Across Asia: A Biography of Subhas Chandra Bose", New Delhi: Orient Blackswan, 1996.
2. Gordon, Leonard A., "Brothers Against The Raj: A Biography of Indian Nationalist Leaders Sarat and Subhas Chandra Bose, New Year: Columbia U P, 1990.
3. Sen Gupta, S. C., "India Wrests Freedom", Calcutta: Sahitya Samsad, 1982.
4. Hauner, M., "India in Axis Strategy: Germany, Japan, and Indian Nationalists in the Second World War", Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta, 1981.
5. Werth, Alexander, "Der Tiger Indiens Subhas Chandra Bose: Ein Leben f. d. Freiheit d. Subkontinents", Esslingen: Bechtle Verlag, 1971.
6. Fay, Peter W., "The Forgotten Army: India's Armed Struggle for Independence, 1942-1945", Ann Arbor: U of Michigan P, 1991.

[Blaudrachen]

One small correction: in the reference for Leonard A. Gordon's book, the place-of-publication should be "New York"; sorry for the inadvertent slip.

[LWD]

@LWD: When you say "I've heard of", you, clearly, are just relying on "wishful thinking" yourself;

That you say so either indicates you have a rather limited grasp of English or are being deliberately provocative. I said I hadn't heard of it and indeed I hadn't. But let's examine this a bit more:

the Provisional Government controlled the Andaman & Nicobar Islands (renamed "Shaheed" and "Swaraj" by them), along with some, admittedly-small areas in North-Eastern India-- in Moirang, near the North-Eastern Indian provincial capital of Imphal,

From the wiki article at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andaman_an ... ar_Islands

The British continued their occupancy until the Japanese invasion and occupation of the Andaman Islands during World War II.
....
The islands were nominally put under the authority of the Arzi Hukumate Azad Hind of Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose.

So it's not clear how much control they had independent of the Japanese. Was the situation in Moirang similar? Even if not does the occupation of such a small territory especially as they seem to be operating as Japanese puppets at best merit any recongintion as any sort of independent state?

The Allies couldn't "ignore it", given the large numbers of POWs captured after WW2,

They could certainly ignore it as any sort of real sovereign state.

and there were public trials in New Delhi by the British, which caused massive and the most violent demonstrations, till then, all over India, along with an actual "mutiny" in the ships of the Royal Indian Navy, off the coast of Mumbai (then Bombay); further, Congress-leaders, including the future Prime Minister of India, Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru, acted as defence lawyers for the captured officers and other ranks of the INA and all sections of the political spectrum, including the Muslim League, collaborated in demonstrations against the trials!

Which shows that the British simply treated them as rebels. Post war support is at the trials is rather irrelevant.

PLEASE, before being SO dismissive, read a bit about what you're dismissing out of hand;....

If you wouldn't have made such exaggerated claims you wouldn't have gotten the reaction you did. I've seen no real evidence of any independence from the Japanese or indications that they would have exited as more than a pack of discontents with out the war and Japanese aid. Furthermore the existence of all the POWs suggest they did indeed surrender.

[Blaudrachen]

@LWD: I'ven't claimed that this was a MAJOR Axis power: of course, it was a very minor entity; I, totally, agree with this fact, which's why I've posted this in "Minor Axis Nations". If you were fair-minded and had, indeed, read my posts carefully, you'ld've noticed that I never claimed the INA were independent of the Japanese; however, if you'd ANY knowledge of International Law, you'ld've known that a State that'd been recognised by a number of other states can claim to be one, ON PAPER! You see, lots of things can be claimed on paper, in theory, e. g., the claims that American and British bombers were only targeting military installations when they'd carpet-bombed Dresden or fire-bombed Tokyo or that Churchill was a great democrat; if such outrageous claims can be made and treasured as facts, why shouldn't a slightly-hyped notion of a "State" that never surrendered on paper be so "exaggerated"? If you'd a clearer and less-dismissive attitude to this issue, you'ldn't've made ridiculous statements like "the existence of all the POWs suggest they did indeed surrender"; POWs're exchanged all the time through a war: it is only when a State signs an "Instrument of Surrender" that it counts as such. Yes, of course, the INA faded away and was suppressed in Anglo-American historiography and its Indian fellow-traveller, but, ON PAPER, it didn't surrender; I do know my claim's a bit hyped but this hype may be a tiny attempt to cure another kind of hype, especially if the latter has been in force for 60-plus years! It doesn't matter who transferred the A&N Islands to whom: the INA held them on paper and that's that, from a legal point-of-view; further, since when does size of territories governed determine statehood or are we going to claim that Cuba or Singapore aren't States? Lastly, I don't know what to make of your rather-insulting statement about my English: are you just being provocative yourself or're just plain, old-fashioned racist?

[LWD]

... If you were fair-minded and had, indeed, read my posts carefully, you'ld've noticed that I never claimed the INA were independent of the Japanese; however, if you'd ANY knowledge of International Law, you'ld've known that a State that'd been recognised by a number of other states can claim to be one, ON PAPER!

One doesn't need to be recognized at all to claim to be a state. On the other hand just because one is recognized by some powers does not mean that other powers or even individuals need to recongnize it.

You see, lots of things can be claimed on paper, in theory, e. g., the claims that American and British bombers were only targeting military installations when they'd carpet-bombed Dresden or fire-bombed Tokyo or that Churchill was a great democrat; if such outrageous claims can be made and treasured as facts, why shouldn't a slightly-hyped notion of a "State" that never surrendered on paper be so "exaggerated"?

Well I'm not at all such claims have been made. However it's pretty clear that the INA was a propaganda force that wasn't really a seperate entity from the Imperial Japanese Army.

If you'd a clearer and less-dismissive attitude to this issue,

Actually I think I've got a very clear picture of this issue and that's why I'm dismissive of it.

you'ldn't've made ridiculous statements like "the existence of all the POWs suggest they did indeed surrender"; POWs're exchanged all the time through a war: it is only when a State signs an "Instrument of Surrender" that it counts as such.

That presumes the state exists. The INA apparently surrendered in mass at the end of the war along with the Japanese forces they were part of. The allies didn't recognize them as an independent state so no "Instrument of Surrender" was necessary and the post war situation pretty much showed that there conclusions and actions were reasonable in this regard.

Yes, of course, the INA faded away

As did other IJA formations. Your point is?

and was suppressed in Anglo-American historiography and its Indian fellow-traveller, but, ON PAPER, it didn't surrender;

Your choice of words make your political agenda rather transparent. There was no need for it to surrender "ON PAPER" as far as the rest of the world was concerned it was a non entity. Note that the same logic applied to similar situations leaves a pretty clear picture of things. I'm sure that there was never an "Instrument of Surrender" between Ned Kelly's bunch and the Australians or the UK. Or how about Bonnie Prince Charlie's Jacobites? Or the Irish rebels of 1798?

... It doesn't matter who transferred the A&N Islands to whom: the INA held them on paper and that's that, from a legal point-of-view;

Of course if you consider the INA to simply be part of the IJA then what?

further, since when does size of territories governed determine statehood or are we going to claim that Cuba or Singapore aren't States?

Statehood is defined by a number of things. Cuba for instance is quite a bit larger than the islands you are talking about. Furthermore it's pretty clearly an independent entity and was recognized as such for some time. Singapore was granted Independence by it's former legal an recognized controller. The INA on the other hand was like a fence given control of what could be considered stolen property by the thief and it's right to said property was only acknowledged by said thief and his cohorts.

Lastly, I don't know what to make of your rather-insulting statement about my English: are you just being provocative yourself or're just plain, old-fashioned racist?

Well when someone uses the phrase "I've heard of" it clearly indicates that they simply have no knowledge of the point in question and implicitly recognizes that suck that knowledge of such may exist. To say it constitutes "wishful thinking" indicates that you failed to understand that point which in turn suggest either a lack of understanding of a common English phrase or a deliberate misreading or misstatement of what was intended. Ignorance isn't a sin and pointing out an instance of it or it's possibility shouldn't be considered an insult. I gave you the opertunity to clear up a misunderstanding instead you chose to be even more provocative and started "playing the man rather than the post". Again this points to an agenda rather than an attempt to educate and enlighten.

[Blaudrachen]

@LWD: I leave it to the other readers to read your posts, especially the last paragraph, and judge for themselves; you've, consistently, played with words and phrases and, in the last paragraph, make only a stretched rhetorical sense: I'm, of course, here trying to prove a point by making other readers aware of what's, at best, a forgotten part of WW2, so what? This entire forum seeks to dig out facts that're getting lost and I don't care if, due to hidden politico-historiographical agendas of their own, some readers, like yourself, use bad rhetorical denials and outright semi-literate statements-of-omniscience ("Actually I think I've got a very clear picture of this issue and that's why I'm dismissive of it.") to prove that I've a political agenda; of course, I've a political agenda and the facts're on my side, as the readers'll know if they read the books, both Indian and "Western", I've suggested. You, clearly, are above reading academic texts before denying the truth about something... this's the last time I'll reply to your post/s here.

[LWD]

@LWD: I leave it to the other readers to read your posts, especially the last paragraph, and judge for themselves;

That's find with me. I suspect you would be surprised at how little would come down in your favor.

you've, consistently, played with words and phrases and, in the last paragraph, make only a stretched rhetorical sense:

Hardly. I've made a number of very valid points which you have been unable or unwilling to refute.

I'm, of course, here trying to prove a point by making other readers aware of what's, at best, a forgotten part of WW2, so what?

The INA is hardly forgotten although it's not very well known and even fewer know many details about it. If you had stuck to supplying such information I would have applauded your posts. However you have overclaimed and made extensive use of loaded words and phrase such as:
"great-man" for Subhas Chandra Bose who with little to support it,
or "pseudo-Left-Liberal clique/s", "dominate academia and polity-centric media", "almost sanitise" when refering to those who don't seem to be impressed with "the INA's contribution/s to WWII. ". A contribution which on the face of it looks to be less signficant than say the SS blau division.
or "suppressed in Anglo-American historiography and its Indian fellow-traveller"
And of course the absolute howler "respond to my demand that India-- ....-- be accorded the status of an Axis-nation"

... of course, I've a political agenda

Glad we've got that out of the way.

and the facts're on my side,

Not really.

this's the last time I'll reply to your post/s here.

I'll take that as an admision of defeat. There was absolutly no reason that the allies should even recognize the IJN as anything other than a rebel faction that sided with the axis and evaporated when they were defeated. What could possibly be gained by granting them the recongition of even a minor power? Like other such "entities" in history they are a "might have been but never was".

[Ex Fred]

I know its a bit late but I was wondering about this claim of 'The only Axis-entity that'd NOT surrendered'.

Now as far as I could see Romania, Italy, Bulgaria, did not technically surrender as they signed armistices then changed sides.

That means they agreed to stop fighting the Allies and started fighting the Axis forces instead.

Then you have the co-beligerants like Finland, Thailand, San Marino and the states that were deemed Puppet States and Collaborator States like, Provisional Government of Free India and Vichy France.

Since the India and France had other governments recognised by the Allies, why would they give any recognition to others in the same territory imposed or allowed by their enemies.